Constraint-based hypertext for argumentation

ABSTRACT

In this paper we describe a hypertext system we are developing for the support of reasoned argumentation: the EUCLID project. We use the project to address two general problems arising with hypertext: the problems of controlling user/document interaction, and the problem of controlling the screen. We suggest that guiding users' interaction with hypertext is difficult because of the unique form of discourse that hypertext represents, and that structuring user/document interaction can be achieved through specializing to a particular type of material and designing the hypertext system to respect the particular discourse structure characteristic of that material. EUCLID's design is tuned to the structure of reasoned discourse. The problem of screen management in EUCLID is a serious one, because our presentation of complex arguments requires mapping the complex logical relations between parts of realistic arguments onto complex spatial relations between items in the display. We describe a general system we are developing which provides this high degree of control for hypertext screen management. This system represents a constraint-based approach to hypertext, in which the items from the underlying database that are to be displayed may each contribute a number of constraints on the layout; a general constraint-satisfier then computes a screen layout that simultaneously satisfies these constraints. Each time an item is to be added to or deleted from the screen, the constraint set is adjusted and the screen layout is recomputed; thus the spatial relationships on the screen provide at all times a veridical representation of the underlying relations between displayed database items. This kind of strong screen control is demanded by hypertext applications which, like ours, are fine grained: the number of nodes and links being displayed number in the hundreds.

REFERENCES

• Aboc85: Acock, M. (1985). Informal logic examples and exercises. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Alva85: Alvarado, S.J., Dyer, M.G., & Flowers, M. (1985). Memory representation and retrieval for editorial comprehension. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
• Arti80: Artificial Intelligence. (1980). Special issue on non-monotonic logic. Volume 13, Numbers 1-2.
• Bim82: Birnbaum, L. (1982). Argument molecules. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
• Birn80: Birnbaum, L., Flowers, M., & McGuire, R. (1980). Towards an AI model of argumentation. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
• Brow85: Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1985). Issues in cognitive and social ergonomics: From our house to Bauhaus. Human-Computer Interaction, 1,359-391.
• Cyph86: Cypher, A. (1986). The structure of users' activities. In D.A. Norman & S.W. Draper, Eds., User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Enge80: Engel, S.M. (1980). Analyzing informalfaUacies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentiss-HaU.
• Flow80: Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Flow88: Flower, L.S., Hayes, J.R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (to appear). Detection, diagnosis and the strategies of revision. College Comt~osition and Communication.
• Flow82: Flowers, M., McGuire, R., & Birnbaum, L. (1982). Adversary arguments and the logic of personal attacks. In W.G. Lehnert & M.G. Ringle (Eds.), Strategies for natural language understanding. HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Foge82: Fogelin, R.J. (1982). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich.
• Goul80: Gould, J.D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Govi85: Govier, T, (1985). A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Greg80: Gregg, L.W. & Steinberg, EAR., Eds. (1980). Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Haye80: Hayes, JaR. & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg reds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hint69: Hintikka, KJJ. (1969). Models for modalities. Dordrecht: Reidel.
• Holt83: Holt, R.C. (1983). Concurrent Euclid, the ulvtxTM system, and Turis. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
• Kell85a: Kellogg, R.T. (1985). Computer aids that writers need. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 253-258.
• Kell85b: Kellogg, R.T. (1985). Why outlines benefit writers. Paper presented to the Psychonomic Society, Boston.
• Kell88: Kellogg, R.T. (in press). Designing idea processors for document compostion. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers.
• Kirk83: Kirk~trick, S., Gelatt, C.D. Jr., and Vec~hi, M.P. (1983). Optimization by simulate~ annealing. Science, 220, 671-80.
• Lamp77: B. W. Lampson , J. J. Horning , R. L. London , J. G. Mitchell , G. J. Popek, Report on the programming language Euclid, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.12 n.2, p.1-79, February 1977 [doi>10.1145/954666.971189]
• Sear80: Searle, J. (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 417--457.
• Smo188: Smolensky, P., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (in press). Computer-aided reasoned discourse, or, How to argue with a computer. In R. Guindon (Ed.), Cognitive Science and Its Applications For Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Also available as Technical Report CU-CS-358-87. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. February, 1987.
• vanD83: van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
• VanL85: VanLehn, K. (1985). Theory reformulation caused by an argumentation tool. Report. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA.
• Zade79: Zadeh, L.A. (1979). A theory of approximate reasoning. In J.E. Hayes, D. Michie, & L.I. Mikulich, Eds., Machine Intelligence 9. New York: Wiley.
• Zade84: L. A. Zadeh, Syllogistic reasoning in fuzzy logic and its application to reasoning, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1984
• Zuke85: Zukerman, I. & Pearl, J. (1985) Tutorial dialogs and meta-technical utterances. Manuscript. Computer Science Department, UCLA.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.7 DOCUMENT AND TEXT PROCESSING
      I.7.2 Document Preparation
          Subjects: Hypertext/hypermedia

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Languages, Management, Performance, Theory